Paul's Argumentation in Galatians 1–2

Abstract

In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul directly addresses only the Galatian churches; through them, however, he is engaged in a polemic against rival missionaries who had influenced the churches with another gospel. If one intends to analyze Paul's argumentation in Galatians 1–2, it is necessary first to ask about the characteristics of these missionaries and their gospel. In the history of research, many different pictures of the opponents and their gospel have been drawn. These reconstructions result partly from the method of so-called mirror reading; this method infers the position of the opponents by reversing the negations and affirmations in Paul's argumentation. Recently and with good reason this method has been criticized. In my analysis I confine myself to what can be said with certainty about the opponents: First, the opponents shared with Paul the belief in Jesus as the messiah; otherwise Paul could not have termed their message a “gospel” (Gal 1:6). Second, for the opponents the gospel of Paul was incomplete, because it lacked part of the commandments of the covenant, particularly the commandment of circumcision as a prerequisite for full membership among the people of God (Gal 5:3–4; 6:12–13). Although Paul himself did not mention it, we can safely assume that on this point the opponents referred to scripture. Gen 17:10–11, for example, states clearly that without circumcision no one can be a member of the covenant.

Mirror-Reading Moral Issues in Paul’s Letters

“… 3. It is rare, for instance, for his article not to be cited in a commentary on Galatians that has been published after 1987; see, e.g., Fung 1988: 5; Matera 1992: 6; Dunn 1993: 16; Martyn 1997: 120; Vouga 1998: 14; Lémonon 2008: 35. In terms of monographs and critical essays that seriously interact with Barclay’s methodology, consider the following sampling: Vos 1994: 1-16; Miller 2004: 177-236; Schäfer 2004: 38-44; Schewe 2005: 50-53; Wilson 2007: 48-68; Ng 2008: 679-95; Müller 2009: 365-94. Gordon Wenham brings Barclay’s work into the discussion of Pentateuchal source criticism; see Wenham 1991: 84-85.…”